On 23/01/19 18:42, Warin wrote:
On 23/01/19 18:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Date: Jan 23, 2019, 8:31 AM
From: 61sundow...@gmail.com
To: matkoni...@tutanota.com
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Forest parcel with other landcover (scrub,
scree…): how to map?
On 23/01/19 17:52, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Jan 23, 2019, 4:49 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>:
On 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by 61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>:
The end to this madness is for renders to recognise
that the landuse=forest needs to be rendered
differently from natural=wood.
The essential difference between the two is that
landuse must have some human benefit, a produce, and a
clear way of doing that is to add the rendering of a
axe to the tree.
(1) in a typical rendering this distinction is completely
unimportant
or at least not worth different rendering
(2) other people have different mismatching ideas what is the
"real" difference between natural=wood and landuse=forest
(3) there is no consistent difference in how natural=wood
and landuse=forest are used
by mappers
If the is no difference between the two then there will be
no problem depreciating landuse=forest.
First of all: "there many, many opinions how natural=wood and
landuse=forest differ and
some people think that his makes distinction between this tags
useless" is not the same as
"there is no difference".
And landuse=forest is used more than three million times
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest
If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry.
Note that many are not using "forestry" to mean "using forest to
produce wood".
People within OSM are using landuse=forestry to mean that it
provides some produce for human benefit.
The key 'landuse' is about the human use of that land.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse
"used to describe the primary use of land by humans. "
It is not what is there .. but what the use is by humans.
If there is concrete there, or a swamp .. that does not determine
what the use is.
The concrete could for a roadway, or a sports court.
The swamp could be a native reserve, or a waste water filtration
system.
It is not changing that attempting to use landuse=forestry for
"forest and associated area
that is used to produce wood" mismatches with meaning of word forestry.
What definition of the word 'forestry' are you referring?
And a follow up question :)
How are areas zoned/set aside to produce timber from trees to be tagged?
The trees are not always there - like crops on a farm field.
So tagging it for trees is wrong - like tagging a farmers field for
plants that are not always there.
It is a land use - there is a produce for the land and that produce is
for human use, so it meets the key landuse requirements.
So what value is suitable for these areas?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
